<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2024 (10) TMI 846 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760247</link>
    <description>Delhi HC dismissed petition seeking quashing of detention order under COFEPOSA Act for illegal export of Red Sanders Woods. Petitioner argued detention order wasn&#039;t served at his Nepal address despite authorities&#039; knowledge. Court held that persons evading legal process cannot claim fundamental rights violations. Following SC precedent in Subhash Popatlal Dave, court ruled challenges to detention orders on live nexus theory are impermissible when detenu has absconded. Petitioner deliberately evaded service by remaining unavailable at Indian addresses. Court found Section 7 COFEPOSA proceedings properly initiated due to petitioner&#039;s absconding. Representation rights under Article 22(5) only available post-execution of detention order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Oct 2024 16:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=773965" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (10) TMI 846 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760247</link>
      <description>Delhi HC dismissed petition seeking quashing of detention order under COFEPOSA Act for illegal export of Red Sanders Woods. Petitioner argued detention order wasn&#039;t served at his Nepal address despite authorities&#039; knowledge. Court held that persons evading legal process cannot claim fundamental rights violations. Following SC precedent in Subhash Popatlal Dave, court ruled challenges to detention orders on live nexus theory are impermissible when detenu has absconded. Petitioner deliberately evaded service by remaining unavailable at Indian addresses. Court found Section 7 COFEPOSA proceedings properly initiated due to petitioner&#039;s absconding. Representation rights under Article 22(5) only available post-execution of detention order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760247</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>